PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - View Single Post

rcounts · #**752** 06-09-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I honestly don't see this as a "rich" v. "poor" issue; it is a "short term" v. "long term" issue. Do we really think it's appropriate to print more money to support our current energy consumption/production imbalance? How many years do we think that will work before the economic bubble bursts? Do we really want to hand this mess off to our kids (as well as the next generation of "poor" people)?

I really don't understand the argument that we need lower prices and more production at the same time, that's not how it works. The only way you will get energy business to invest in capacity is to increase the value of their product. What would you do if you were on the board of directors, would you start a 5 year refinery project today that is dependent on $90/barrel oil in the future to make a profit? I certainly wouldn't.

You have some valid points. I most certainly do NOT want to see the Government take over oil production. They screw up everything they touch.

However, I do think that some of the consumer protection laws and stock trading and manipulation restrictions already on the books need to be brought to bear on the oil companies AND the futures traders who are driving the prices up.

I also believe that the oil companies would exploit our domestic resources (again, ANWAR and the coastal shelf reserves) AND build more new SAFE reactors (the newer designs are an order of magintude safer than the ones we currently have - as you well know) AND build new production capacity IF the government - the judiciary in particular - would stand up to the rabid environmentalists. They need to stop allowing the far left to obstruct any and every thing that even LOOKS like developing our own domestic resources.

Here's a concept. How about instead of pandering to the radical environmental movement and their penchant for roadblocking these things, revamp the Endangered Species Act to allow for a little balance (instead of everthing being tilted in favor of the needs of every bug, bird, and slug and AGAINST the needs of people), recognize and throw out some of their lawsuits as the spurious legal actions that they are, provide some tax incentives for DEVELOPMENT of both alternative energy AND domestic oil production and get the ball rolling - instead of letting any and every enviro wacko group stand in the way of progress on the energy front? The refineries we have weren't built on $90 a barrel oil prices. They were built when it was under $20 a barrel and the only thing that has changed and has driven the cost out of reach is regulation and environmental lawsuits.

That would be a better way to encourage and develop more energy independance than keeping prices artificially high and placing unreasonable financial burdens on those least able to afford it IMO.

Like pmckechnie, my family's income is still "middle class" enough to afford what we need and at least some of what we want. But we are still feeling the dent that fuel is making in our budget. I really sympathize with the hard working folks who haven't managed to reach the level of income that would be considered "middle class". The kind of additional financial burden that the current fuel prices place on them not only hits them harder, it also makes it that much more difficult for them to rise into the middle class. Not to mention the fact that it is driving more of those in the lower middle class below the line into joining the growing ranks of the working poor. The current stae of affairs is just increasing the divide between the "haves" and "have-nots"...

As for understanding how we can have more production and lower prices at the same time, higher production (increased supply) pretty much guarantees lower prices. That's the most fundimental principle of supply and demand.